Human Rights at a Taiwan university

U.S.-Asia Law Institute
110 West 3rd Street
Room 218, New York
New York 10012
Telephone: (212) 992-8837
Facsimile: (212) 995-3664
Email: usasialaw@nyu.edu

Jerome A. Cohen
Professor Frank Upham

31 March 2011

Dear Professors,

I have had long-standing problems with human rights violations at
National Cheng Kung University in Tainan, Taiwan.

In March 1999 I was illegally dismissed as Associate Professor at that
university. I was not even informed of accusations against me until
after the dismissal hearing, of which I was similarly uninformed.

When original accusations were contested by the NCKU Teachers Union, a
secret letter from a student was then circulated at so-called
oversight committees to insure my dismissal. (The chair refused to
inform me of the contents of the letter, which I discovered only when
I took the student to court several years later.)

The dismissal was canceled in December, 1999 but the university lawyer
argued that a foreign teacher was not protected by the Teachers Law,
which prevented dismissal except for misconduct. The courts and the
Ministry of Education rejected this claim later, but the lawyer's
claim undermined the legal right to benefit from a favorable appeal
ruling. Thus the appeal was a legal sham, presumably a dilatory tactic
to insure my visa would expire.

Under US law at least such actions would violate the principle of
estoppel. But from what I understand that principle does not exist in
Taiwan.

After numerous hearings that obstinately repeated discredited
accusations, I gave up expecting justice at the university and
appealed to the Ministry of Education in Taipei, which ruled in my
favor on 8 January 2001. However, Kao Chiang, the university
president, refused to honor that appeal for nearly two and a half
years, until May 2003. Instead the university filed a lawsuit,
claiming foreigners had no right to appeal, despite the fact the
university held numerous appeal hearings and attended the one in
Taipei, another violation of the estoppel principle.

In the meantime two university officials tried to extort my
resignation from the university, at half pay, or threatened to delay
the case indefinitely in the courts.

Even when the university finally reinstated me in May, 2003 it held
further hearings and imposed penalties, despite the Ministry ruling.
Those were also overturned by the Ministry of Education.

University officials were repeatedly warned by members of the Teachers
Union and Ministry of Education officials that their actions were
illegal (see attachments) but persisted in their misconduct. Yet apart
from retroactive salary, I received no compensation nor was the
university required to pay punitive damages. In addition, the
university has never apologized.

Court rulings were puzzling (see attached). The court imposed no
damages on the university nor even awarded me compensation for travel
expenses incurred repeatedly renewing my visa. The court argued there
was no need for me to have stayed in Taiwan to fight the case!

How can an appellant contest a case without being present to do so?
The university could have insisted on my presence at a meeting,
forcing my return, delayed the meeting, and so on in a cycle of
attrition that would both discourage and impoverish me. Besides, in
another case a Taiwan judge awarded child custody to a Taiwanese
mother on the basis the American father did not remain in Taiwan,
suggesting he had no paternal interest in the child! "Heads I win,
tails you lose."

Review committee members and the student who wrote the secret letter
were similarly found not liable for libel on the basis their false
accusations did not circulate outside the university. But all libel
statutes I know state an action constitutes libel if a single third
party hears a false accusation.

What can be done with this case? The Ministry of Education, despite
its ten warning letters to the university president (see attached) not
only did not punish him but approved him for another three-year term
as president. The Control Yuan has done nothing. The three major
English-language newspapers never publish my letters about the case,
despite many editorials about human rights violations in Mainland
China.

Taiwan has recently endorsed international human rights charters,
which insure remedy in human rights cases. But the way this case has
been handled at Ministry and judicial levels suggests human rights is
a nebulous concept here.

I'm concerned what my legal options are, not only in Taiwan but in
America, since I am an American citizen. National Cheng Kung
University has numerous academic exchanges with reputable US
universities. Are there US laws or university bylaws that prohibit
academic exchanges with a university that has a documented record of
human rights abuses? Are there media or human rights groups willing to
expose this case in the US, since those options are virtually
nonexistent in Taiwan? Presumably Taiwan's media and government are
more concerned with the rights of a Taiwan taekowondo athlete than
with those of an American professor.

I am not merely fighting an individual case, but I hope to insure
proper treatment of American faculty in the future. Thank you for
whatever advice you give.

Sincerely,

Richard de Canio
Tainan, Taiwan
(06) 237 8626

Re: The case at National Cheng Kung University

MEGAN LU
Legal Aid Foundation

24 March 2011

Dear Ms. Lu,

Nice meeting you this afternoon. I am sending documents that may help,
assuming you have not received them in hard copy.

I would like to clear up one matter we briefly touched upon this
afternoon, namely the difference between American and Taiwan law. Of
course there will always be differences; there are differences between
American state laws too (some have capital punishment, some don't;
some give harsher sentences for the same crimes, etc.); but there are
legal guidelines too! I know of no US state or foreign country that
would not prosecute child abuse, for example; and federal law prevents
wide disparity in sentencing. All countries have libel laws, statutes
against bodily harm, sexual offenses, etc.

My criticism does not concern a difference or mild disparity of
rulings between nations. I don't expect the large punitive damages one
is used to in American law; but when the university is not ordered to
pay any damages, then that's an issue. It undermines confidence is
legal channels in Taiwan.

I feel judges in Taiwan do not strictly apply laws in their rulings,
as can be seen in other cases. A person kisses a stranger on the
street and it's ruled not a sexual act because the kiss lasted only a
few seconds. A person takes photographs of a woman in a changing room
and that's ruled not a sexual offense because it was in a public
place. One judge ruled a child should have resisted sexual advances,
etc.

Every lawyer knows that democracy is won or lost in thousands of court
cases daily. That's why lawyers fight so hard for defendants who don't
seem to deserve it. Why defend a person who killed three babies, even
when he admits to doing so? The answer is the lawyer isn't fighting
for that criminal so much as fighting for principles of law, which are
won or lost in courtrooms daily.

I wish people in Taiwan would see my case in that perspective. A
society is risking social chaos if it allows officials to do what they
did to me without punishment;. A society undermines the law if it
allows a student to accuse a teacher of failing her eight years
before, without proof, and with evidence clearly showing she was
lying.

Certainly one of the purposes of legal redress is to serve as a safety
valve, to prevent injured parties from taking the law into their own
hands. Without confidence in fair judicial rulings, a father would
kill the man who raped his child. Three strong men would beat a person
who owed one of them money and never repaid it. A person whose house
was burned down by another would burn down that person's house too,
possibly killing innocent people.

Therefore the average citizen must have trust in judicial rulings. I
can honestly say I don't trust judicial rulings in Taiwan. My case
speaks for itself. But it doesn't speak only for me; it speaks (or
should speak) for all citizens.

I suppose some people in Taiwan think what happened to a foreigner
cannot happen to them. First, that's a selfish way of thinking.
Second, it's not even true, like I argued above; because principles of
law are eroded or firmly established in every case brought before the
law. That's what we know as "common law" and "case law" and "case
precedent."

So those who fight for a case today on behalf of someone else will
insure justice for themselves or their family in the future. The same
judge who ruled that a student who wrote a secret letter against me
did nothing wrong can rule, next year, against a Taiwanese, in a
similar type of case.

So democracy is a job of work. I'm fond of the saying, "Democracy is
not something you have, it's something you do."

How true. Democracy is "done" every day, in court rooms, at school
meetings, among parents who complain there's no stop light on the
school corner, or that a child was bullied in school, and in similar
cases.

It's not only selfish, but short-sighted, for my colleagues to think
my illegal dismissal only concerns me; like it's short-sighted to
ignore discrimination based on race if one belongs to a "favored"
race; because tomorrow the same company will discriminate based on
religion or based on gender or based on who you know. That's how legal
rights are daily eroded and lost.

Consider the erosion of legal principles in my case. A secret letter
was circulated by high officials at a high-ranked university. Neither
the student nor officials were punished. The student is now teaching
part-time at the university; faculty who defended her are now
department chair and Dean of Liberal Arts. A president who refused to
enforce a legal Ministry ruling was not only never punished but
approved for another three-year term as president! Yet these officials
control the minds of the next generation of citizens in Taiwan! What
does that say about the future of Taiwan?

You told me you knew of the principle of estoppel; that one cannot
contradict a claim previously made or assumed in court. Yet the
university lawyer, Wang Cheng-bin, held appeal hearings at the
university then said I had no right to appeal, after I won the case.
Instead of dismissing the lawyer's case the court accepted it and I
won only after months of testimony.

But a court should be a forum based on legal principles, not a place
where people argue out of both sides of their mouth at the same time.
I can't fire someone for being drunk and when I lose the case claim I
fired him for being late!

Not only wasn't this lawyer punished but, from what I've been told,
he's treated with respect in court! I am certain he would have been
disciplined or even dismissed by an American Bar Association.

In sum, I hope the Legal Aid Foundation sees the wider legal
principles involved in my case: equality under the law; the right to
remedy, including compensation and apology; penalties as a deterrent
factor, which encourage lawful conduct in the future; fair judicial
rulings, which discourage personal vengeance or people taking the law
into their own hands; the need to treat foreign litigants fairly,
which encourages cultural and economic exchanges between countries
(capital investment, etc.). In the long run, every society benefits
from the best laws and the best judicial rulings.

Sincerely,

Richard de Canio
(06) 237 8626

Our meeting on Thursday morning at 8:45 a.m.

LEGAL AID FOR FOREIGNERS
Tainan, Taiwan

Dear Iris,

Professor Ray Dah-ton, who has participated in this case from the
beginning, and has attended almost all the court hearings, summed up
and criticized the court's ruling in several of these cases, attached
here in pdf format. Professor Ray has all the legal documents and I'm
sure he can send them upon request, or he can bring them with him if
he is not busy on Thursday morning, the time of my scheduled
appointment at the Legal Aid Foundation.

I will ask him if he can appear at the new scheduled time on Thursday
morning, 24 March, at 8:45 a.m. In the meantime, I think he will be
available in his office after noon today to address questions by
telephone.

Ahead of our meeting, I just wish to say I am deeply disappointed with
legal remedy in Taiwan. It's worse than having no legal channels at
all, because it's disheartening to go through the motions of legal
remedy (court depositions, etc.), not to mention the cost of legal
remedy, when the rulings don't seem to address the issues and facts of
the case.

Sincerely,

Richard de Canio.
(06) 237 8626

Contact: Ray Dah-ton (06) 2757575-62831

Regarding Richard's appointment on Wednesday March 23, 3:30 p.m.

LEGAL AID FOR FOREIGNERS
Tainan, Taiwan
 
21 March 2011

Dear Iris,

We spoke over the phone around 4 p.m. on Monday. I asked for legal assistance. I have an appointment on Wednesday, March 23, at 3:30 p.m. but I thought I would sum up the issues here too.

In June 1999 I was illegally dismissed from National Cheng Kung University. When the first accusations against me were challenged, a student letter was secretly circulated at hearings to insure my dismissal. The student, Chen An-chun ("Lily" Chen) accused me of failing her unfairly. She had no proof. She never contested her grade at the time but only eight years later in secret. (I saw the student's letter only after taking her to court a few years later.)

The dismissal was canceled in December, 1999 but the university lawyer argued, against all legal principles, that a foreign teacher was not protected by the Teacher's Law, which prevented dismissal except for misconduct. The courts and the Ministry of Education rejected this claim later, but the lawyer's claim contradicted the legal right to benefit from a favorable appeal ruling.

In US law the lawyer's action would have been prevented by the principle known as estoppel: that is, one party in a dispute cannot contradict a previous claim, either implicit or explicit. If the university held an appeal the university should be bound to honor an appeal that favors the appellant.

After numerous tricky hearings I gave up expecting justice at the university and appealed to the Ministry of Education in Taipei, which ruled in my favor on 8 January 2001. However, Kao Chiang, university president, refused to honor that appeal for nearly two and a half years, until May 2003. Instead the university filed a lawsuit, claiming foreigners had no right to appeal, despite the fact the university held numerous appeal hearings and attended the one in Taipei, another violation of the estoppel principle.

In the meantime two university officials invited me to a meeting with representatives of NCKU's Teachers Union. At that meeting the two officials tried to extort my resignation from the university, at half pay, and threatened to delay the case indefinitely in the courts unless I did so. I believe this would fall under the felony known as extortion under US law, which involves coercion (threats,force, blackmail, etc.).

Even when the university finally reinstated me in May, 2003 it held further hearings and imposed penalties despite the Ministry ruling! Those were also overturned by the Ministry of Education.

The legal misconduct committed by university officials in this case should be considered an outrage if Taiwan is considered as a democracy. I am certain, for example, that the university lawyer would have been disbarred under principles of the US Bar Association. University officials would have been dismissed under ethical regulations and laws in the US. I am certain I would have been awarded considerable damages by a United States court for the university's willful and malicious misconduct, both to compensate me and to deter similar misconduct in the future.

But apart from retroactive salary, I received no compensation nor was the university required to pay punitive damages. I should add university officials were repeatedly warned by members of the Teachers Union and Ministry of Education officials that what they were doing was illegal (see attachments) but persisted in their misconduct anyway. Such willful, defiant, and malicious misconduct usually insures high punitive damages in US courts as a deterrent. Not only have I been denied compensation but the university has refused to apologize. Democracy in Taiwan cannot mature if this kind of misconduct is tolerated, without penalty or accountability.

Court rulings on this case are puzzling. The court never sanctioned university officials and instead of stopping the university's lawsuit contesting my rights under the Ministry of Education ruling (estoppel) actually heard the case, when it should have been dismissed on principle.

Presumably, the legal system is based on human rights and ethical principles and is not just a forum for any kind of claim! I can't take someone to court for wearing a black suit on the claim it depresses me! US lawyers are fined for bringing unprincipled cases to court.

Similarly, the court never punished the student, Chen An-chun, though I appealed at several levels. As I was told, the judge ruled it was "reasonable" the student believed she failed unfairly! But that's not why I took her to court! I took her to court not because she believed she failed unfairly but because she argued that as if it were a fact. The judge ignored "the preponderance of evidence," as it's known in US civil law: The student received three high passes from me apart from her failure. She accused me in secret. Her letter was solicited by a university official in order to be used in my dismissal. She accused me without proof. She accused me eight years after the class. Yet the judge found nothing wrong in her conduct!

The judge also ruled that Lily's accusation was not libel since it was not circulated outside the university. But all libel laws I know of state that a false accusation is libel if just one other person, apart from the person being defamed, hears it. If I falsely accuse Bob of being a thief and only Bob hears it, it's not libel. But if John hears it too, it's libel. But the judge ruled against me!

Finally the judge ruled against compensation on the basis that I did not have to stay in Taiwan to fight my illegal dismissal and therefore could not claim compensation for hotel costs, airplane fees, etc. when I renewed by visa every few months.

How could I have fought my case by moving back to the United States? As soon as I moved back the university would have held a hearing and insisted on my presence. When I flew back to Taiwan the university would have found a reason to delay the hearing, or held numerous other hearings. It would have cost me even more money.

Besides, another judge made a completely opposite ruling in a case of an American's attempt to gain custody of his child with a Taiwanese wife. Because the American returned to the United States in the meantime the judge ruled that proved he did not really love his child and awarded custody to the Taiwanese mother! In other words, "heads I win, tails you lose"! If I had returned to the United States the court might have ruled against me in the university case, because my return to the US proved I was not sincere about my attempt to fight my dismissal; or that I missed an appeal hearing and thus forfeited my appellant rights!

Apparently judges in Taiwan can rule either way. Does it seem reasonable that an appellant should leave Taiwan while fighting an illegal dismissal at a Taiwan university? A democracy is established on numerous rulings such as these; that's why US lawyers fight so hard for principles of human rights in American courtrooms.

That's why I can't let this case disappear. This is not just my issue; it concerns the future of Taiwan democracy, because democracy is established on thousands of daily rulings.

Besides, Taiwan citizens receive justice in the United States; moreover, rational judicial rulings discourage misconduct. I think an American citizen should receive justice (not merely legal rulings) in Taiwan.

I therefore ask for your assistance.

My question is what can be done with this case? Taiwan has recently signed international human rights charters, which insure remedy in human rights cases. There is also the Control Yuan, the Ministry of Education and other civil remedies. Please advise me.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Richard de Canio
Tainan, Taiwan
(06) 237 8626

Unresolved human rights abuses at National Cheng Kung University in Tainan, Taiwan

Ministry of Education
Dr. Wu Ching-Ji,
Minister of Education
Taipei, Taiwan

cc:Dr. Hwung-Hweng Hwung
President
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan

Scholars at Risk
New York, N.Y.

15 March 2011

Dear Minister Wu,

National Cheng Kung University has a chronic history of human rights violations that began in 1999 with my illegal dismissal. University officials circulated a secret letter, invented accusations against me after other accusations were discredited, then canceled my dismissal on appeal but refused to honor its own ruling on the basis that foreigners were not protected by the Teachers Law, a claim rejected by the Ministry as well as the courts.

When your Ministry ruled in my favor on 8 January 2001, the university refused to honor that ruling for nearly two and a half years, despite ten warning letters (attached). Instead it used tax-paid money to contest a legal appeal at which the university deposed and never contested until it lost.

In the meantime, university officials tried to extort my resignation by threatening to delay the case in the courts indefinitely. After it reinstated me, the university contested my right to retroactive salary and held further hearings to penalize me.

To the present day the university has not apologized, issued compensation, or punished faculty and students in their conspiracy to obstruct justice and deny an American professor his rights.

Several presidents, including the present one, have failed to resolve this case according to principles guaranteed by international law. One president, Kao Chiang, defied the Ministry for years, as if NCKU were a rogue institution instead of a top-ranked university in Taiwan.

Academic exchanges cannot and should not be maintained except on a basis of mutual respect. There are also principles called "human rights," which Taiwan has recently endorsed as a guarantee of both law and appeal, if necessary, above the law, based on universal ideals rather than local prejudices.

Only prejudice could explain why Kao Chiang's administration was extended by another three-year term even after he defied the Ministry of Education (see attachments)? The Universal Declaration of Human Rights insures officials will be punished despite official position, power, or nationality.

Similarly, the Taiwan student who made secret accusations against me not only has never been punished but is teaching part-time at the university where she discredited me. An American professor is not without honor, except in Taiwan. Only nationalistic prejudice could explain why a Taiwan student was allowed to discredit a teacher without proof and eight years after a disputed grade.

The Golden Rule is part of Western and Chinese moral codes, but apparently is only observed under the American justice system, where the student would have been discredited, not the teacher. That's called due process of law, which is no respecter of persons.

The university's refusal to punish this student has impacted my life to the present, as, twelve years later, NCKU students still think I failed a student unfairly (see attached student Internet post, dated August 2010). Similarly, in a Wikipedia Edit dated 20 October 2010, it's claimed my illegal dismissal never occurred (see attachment)!

Whether the writer is associated with NCKU is irrelevant. The university's refusal to formally close this case has fostered a revisionist history that exculpates the university, though NCKU officials repeated  human rights violations defiantly and obstinately (see MOE attachment).

Thus there can be no compromise on the issues of a formal apology, compensation, and punishment of the student. Apart from losses in time and money, compensation is an earnest of sincerity. If I sincerely apologize for breaking someone's window I will pay for it. If I don't, my apology is insincere since it ignores the harm caused.

Recently an NCKU official drafted an "apology" that appealed to "the True, the Good, and the Beautiful." As if those could exist without human rights and a remedy that insures them. When Plato used those words he meant justice, not the denial of justice.

A university that does not observe those principles must be considered a rogue institution, with no right to academic exchanges with American universities or universities that guarantee human rights.

This case will soon be in its thirteenth year. I regret to say if I don't receive an adequate reply to this petition by Thursday, I will, as a further step, circulate this letter to the student newspapers of universities with which NCKU has academic exchanges. Perhaps if American students expose this case it will force an open discussion of these issues on college campuses to insure a just resolution so far denied me in Taiwan.

Sincerely,

Richard de Canio
formerly, Associate Professor
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University

Concerning human rights abuses at National Cheng Kung University that we discussed over the telephone this morning.

Mr. David Wu
Ministry of Education
Taipei, Taiwan

11 March 2011

Dear Mr. Wu,

You asked to know the facts of my illegal dismissal at National Cheng Kung University in 1999. The case is well known and has appeared in the news but is still unresolved due either to defiant or incompetent officials at NCKU, including several former presidents, up to the current one, Hwung-Hweng Hwung.

One former president, Kao Chiang, defied the Ministry of Education for years, without penalty. In fact, he was approved for a second three-year term even after he defied the Ministry. How can Taiwan's universities expect to maintain academic exchanges with American universities if Taiwan allows discrimination against American professors?

In 1999 a secret accusatory letter was circulated at several review hearings to insure my dismissal when previous accusations were challenged for being improperly investigated.

After my dismissal was canceled in December 1999 the university denied reinstatement on the claim that "foreigners" were not protected by Taiwan's Teachers Law. Thus the dismissal case was returned to the department, now as a "hiring"  case, contradicting the purpose of appeal. (This claim was rejected by both Taiwan's Ministry of Education and Taiwan's Courts.)

After many bogus university hearings, which repeated the same unproved and defamatory accusations with the same results, I appealed to the Ministry of Education and won a ruling dated January 8, 2001. The university then claimed foreigners were not entitled to appeal, though it held numerous appeal hearings and attended the one in Taipei. Instead of obeying the law, which is what officials do in a democracy, the university filed suit to contest the Ministry ruling.

When the court ruled against the university, it defied court and Ministry rulings, ten warning letters from the Ministry (attached), and two advisory letters from Scholars at Risk, a human rights group based in New York.

Four years after my dismissal, and nearly two and a half years after the Ministry ruling, the university reinstated me, but held illegal hearings to deny me promotion and increments for seven years. That decision was also overturned by the Ministry of Education.

To this day several university presidents have ignored my many petitions to resolve this case according to principles of law and international law to which Taiwan subscribes.

The student who wrote a secret malicious letter against me, which I saw only by court order years later, was never punished and is now teaching at our university after receiving her Master's and Doctorate at NCKU. However her graduate committees were made up almost entirely of the same professors who defended her for writing a secret letter against me. This calls into question the impartiality of NCKU's accreditation process, since I know of no professor in any democracy that would defend a student for secretly accusing a teacher, especially when it was solicited by one of the professors who defended her action.

The officials who violated my rights by circulating unproved accusations and a secret letter were never punished. Committee members and chairs who chose to protect their colleagues instead of my rights, discrediting formal remedy at our university, were never held accountable. Apart from retroactive salary, I received no compensation for the interruption to my career and the costs, in time and money,  fighting this case to the present day.

The current president, Hwung-Hweng Hwung, is engaged in the same dismissive and delay  tactics of his predecessors. But if Dr. Hwung doesn't take this case seriously I will pursue his dismissal in the courts and also argue for the termination of academic exchanges with American universities. Should a university that has no internal means to remedy its abuses be allowed to maintain academic exchanges with US universities governed by human rights principles, laws, and administrative remedy?

The discriminatory actions against a foreign professor would be called "racism" under most definitions of that word. When a young Taiwan student accuses her American professor of unfairly failing her eight years before, without proof, and in secret, and is favored by university officials over the professor himself, undermining principles of due process, proof, and equal rights under the law (including the right to challenge the accuser), that should be considered institutionalized racism at National Cheng Kung University; and on that basis I will argue under US laws that academic exchanges with NCKU should be terminated, in the same way that was done during apartheid in South Africa.

National Cheng Kung University's stubborn refusal to issue a formal apology addressing the serious legal rights issues involved, make compensation, and insure penalties against those who conspired during the university's illegal dismissal action has added insult to injury.

This is not only an issue of principle. The university's refusal to issue a formal apology has caused grievous harm to the present time.  For example, a student wrote on the Internet just last year that most NCKU students heard of Lily Chen's accusations against me and favor her over me! (See attached.)

An Edit for Wikipedia's NCKU entry, dated October 20, 2010, even denies my illegal dismissal ever happened and, contrary to court and Ministry rulings, claimed foreign teachers were not protected by the Teacher's Law. (See attached.)

Thus the university's refusal to handle this case according to principles established in most democracies and under international laws Taiwan's president recently endorsed is adding insult to injury and makes it all the more necessary that this case be formally resolved. I will not accept the university's revisionist history of this case. History will know what happened, not what NCKU says happened.

Dr. Hwung should understand that this case will be resolved according to principles shared by all democracies, including a formal apology, just compensation, and penalties against officials involved. There will be no compromise, and time is running out for Dr. Hwung as NCKU president.

If the administration thinks it's going to play hide-and-seek with me the way past administrations did it is grievously mistaken. Essentially, I will use international human rights charters that Taiwan's president signed to insure Dr. Hwung's dismissal as NCKU president. I will also continue my petition to have NCKU's exchanges with American universities terminated on the basis of discriminatory acts against American professors.

Sincerely,

Richard de Canio
formerly Associate Professor
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan
(06) 237 8626

Dr. Hwung-Hweng Hwung
President
National Cheng Kung University
Tainan, Taiwan

Dear President Hwung,

If you read the attached printscreen of a document from the Edit History page of NCKU's Wikipedia entry, you will see why a formal resolution of my dismissal case is imperative.

Whether the Wikipedia editor, APACHE776, is associated with National Cheng Kung University remains to be seen. If NCKU is sincere about its apology it should investigate this issue.

In the meantime, it's irrelevant. What matters is that a revisionist history of my 1999 dismissal, and the human rights violations that continued in the years following, was possible because National Cheng Kung University has delayed an apology for nearly thirteen years and the illegal actions have not been reasonably published or exposed.

The Wikipedia Edit shows how imperative a formal apology is, as well as punitive and compensatory actions integrally related to an apology, whether by moral or legal standards; not only in themselves, but as an earnest, or token, of real administrative change in the university to prevent a repeat occurrence of what happened.

Sincerely,

Richard de Canio
formerly, FLLD
NCKU